General categories and types of projects

In previous subsection we iearned that a universal theory of project management may be inappropriate for ail projects at ail turnes given the fundamental différences that exist across projects because each project is unique. In the author's view, the assumption that ail projects are similar or should be treated generically is aiso challenged by the great number of systems of project categorization7 that depend on the perspectives used by the authors. If projects were indeed generic, why try to categorize them? What is the logic behind project categorization?

Project management practices vary significantly from one type of project to the next (Payne &

Turner, 1999; Shenhar 1998). Examining engineering projects, Shenhar (1998) found considerabie differences in management style, project organization and operationai practice.

Also, organizations categorize their projects to assign appropriate competencies (Crawford, Hobbs & Turner, 2006). In order to do them [projects] right, they apply different tools, techniques and approaches depending on the type of the project. Therefore, proper project

According to Crawford, Hobbs and Turner (2006) categorization systems sort things into sets of items with similar properties.

Categorization systems differ from classification systems, which sort things into mutually exclusive sets. Therefore, under a classification system, an item can belong w only one set, whereas under a categorization system, an item can belong to several sets.

categorization prior to project initiation and management style, attitude and practice carefully adapted to the specific project type may lead to better implementation and to an increased chance of project success (Shenhar, 1998). Moreover, project success factors are not universal for ail projects and consequently. différent projects exhibit différent sets of success factors (Dvir, Lipovetsky, Shenhar, & Tishier, 1998).

Différent authors propose différent categorization systems of projects. For example, Wateridge (1995), Payne (1995) and Van Der Merwe (1997) grouped projects into two categories: single projects and multiple projects depending on whether or not the integrating parts of a project are closely interdependent and share the same objective. Ferns (1991) proposed the name programme management to describe management of a cluster of projects or multiple projects. Evaristo & van Fenema (1999) built on this categorization and presented a two-dimensional model for categorization of projects based on the number of projects and geographical sites involved.

Turner and Cochrane (1993;) categorized proj ects according to the degrees of definition of project goals and methods used to attain them. Bubshait and Selen (1992) used the approach based on the application area or industry in which project was implemented. Youker (1999a) categorized projects by project deliverable or project product. McElroy (1996) grouped projects in two categories: hard and soft, based on the tangibility of proj ects' outputs. Crawford and Pollack (2004) expanded on this classification by developing a framework based on seven project attributes.

The prolifération of project categorization systems seems to challenge the notion of the generic nature of projects. We asked the question why to categorize projects, if they are ail similar? The answer is simple: we categorize projects because it is casier to manage them successfully if we 26

assign appropriate resources and choose appropriate management methods that best respond to project specificity. Therefore, we can conclude that projects differ between themselves and are far from being uniform.

2.1.3. Standard projects versus international development projects

In this subsection we define the most important characteristics of international development projects. "It goes without saying that the various projects should have différent characteristics, probably in une with the main industry invoived" (Lundin & Sôderholm, 2006). According to International development projects differ from industrial or commercial projects in several important ways, the understanding of which impacts on how the projects can be managed and evaluated (Ahsan & Gunawan, 2010; Khang & Moe 2008). It is therefore necessary to know the differences between standard projects and international development projects in order to understand what determines international development project management tools and methodologies, like resuits-based management.

Despite the existence of important différences between standard projects and international development projects, international development projects share several characteristics with ail projects regardless of the field in which they are implemented. First, international development projects, as projects in other fields, consist of phases, that is, have a life cycle. Second, despite ail the disappointment in projects as the means of delivery of international development aid and their graduai replacement by more complex and longer programs, projects are stiil the cutting edge of development (Hirschman, 1967): in more difficuit and fast-changing environments where programs have no raison d'être, projects may be the only vehicie to implement change. Third, the triple constraint of time, scope and budget applies, although flot uniformly, te, international

development projects as well. Fourth, IDPs are undertaken to produce expected resuits, even if they are flot aiways tangible.

Project-related principles, rules, techniques and procedures appeared in the engineering disciplines (Kerzner, 2003) but they quickly expanded beyond, "spurred on by assumptions of universal applicability" (Ika & Hodgson, 2010). Project management colonized ail quarters of life (Making projects critical, 2006) and nowadays resides in almost every profession, including international development. Stili, international development is a non-traditional project-oriented sector, where the use of project management tools is specific (Ika, Diallo, & Thuillier, 2010a) and international development project management is a sub-sector of general management aside other sub-sectors such as IT, education, construction and engineering, telecommunications, manufacturing, defense and service industries (Austin, 2000). IDPM specifically refers to those internationaliy funded or donor funded projects or programs in the public sector in developing countries. In fact, international development projects are designed to respond to economic and social needs of developing countries (Ahsan & Gunawan, 2010). It is worth mentioning that the aid industry is stili dominated by projects even though project mechanism is fraught with difficulties (Russell-Hodge & Hunnam, 1998). Aid organizations recognize this faiiure and are reengineering project processes and developing integrated program approaches (Russell-Hodge &

Hunnam, 1998).

So what are the différences between standard projects and international development projects (IDPs)? Below we present major différences between the standard projects and IDPs in relation to project objectives, its deliverables, project environment, its stakeholders and bureaucracy.

28

2.1.3.1. 'Soft' objectives

Originally, most international development projects were hard projects like civil works, railroads, and power plants, but the portfolio has changed to include an ever-increasing portion of soft projects in education, health, human development, capacity building, etc. (Diallo & Thuillier, 2005). Stiil, international development projects aims and goals differ a lot in comparison to those of standard projects in engineering, industrial or commercial fields (see Table 1 point 1) because even in case of international development blueprint projects, which involve developing of physical infrastructure, the ultimate soft goals of serving sustainable social and economic development are always given priority (Khang & Moe, 2008). All international development projects are bound by a common goal of contributing to poverty reduction in one form or another (Austin, 2000) by providing "socioeconomic assistance to developing countries or to some specially designated group of target beneficiaries" (Khang & Moe, 2008, p.74). Therefore, unlike standard projects, international development projects are flot concerned with profitability (Ahsan

& Gunawan, 2010).

2.1.3.2. Intangibility of resuits

Humanitarian and social focus of international development projects translates directly to less visible and measurable resuits compared with deliverables of infrastructure or industrial projects (see Table 1 point 2). In case of standard projects, it may be relatively easy to assess the result of the project. Taking infrastructure project as an example, we can account for the number of bridges or kilometers of roads that was built and demonstrate that it constituted a certain percent increase in relation to previous year. In case of soft projects (social and human development projects), it is much more troublesome to demonstrate social and human development. Taking a

blueprint project as an example, even if we built a certain number of bridges or kilometers of roads, are we certain that it will contribute to the wellbeing of the local communities? Is the bridge or road a contributirig factor to opening of the market and the increase in the trade or are there other important but overlooked factors as well? Will this road have a long-term positive impact on local communities, or perhaps it will create conflicts? Will the project be sustainable, will the govemment provide money te, renovate the road or it will fail into min after the first rainy season? That is why development projects are much more complex and their resuits and more difficuit te, measure. This intangibility of IDPs objectives and resuits "raises a special challenge in managing and evaluating development projects that require adaptation of the existing project management body of knowledge and adopting new tools and concepts to define, monitor and measure the extent that the development projects achieve these objectives" (Khang

& Moe, 2008, p.74). According to Khang and Moe (2008) measuring of success of IDPs commonly involves a high degree of subjective judgments due to the intangibility of their objectives.

2.1.3.3. A specific environrnent

Another characteristic that differentiates international development projects from traditional business projects is the specificity of the operating environment (see Table 1 point 3). Trying to define the project environment is undoubtedly a challenge when it can vary significantly from one country to another (Austin, 2000) and change rapidly (Youker, 1992). In general terras, the environment includes everything outside the project: its technology (i.e. the knowledge base), the nature of its products, custorners and competitors, its geographical setting, the economic, political and even meteorological climate (Youker, 1992). IDPs environment can often be characterized by the following factors: limited or weak institutional capacity within the government

30

administration to implement projects; unfavorable procurement procedures, practices and implementation capacity; political instability; shortages of experienced personnel and personnel selection based on relationships rather than competency; frequent changes in partner ministry leadership and employees; lack of accountability and transparency; poor infrastructure, water treatment facilities and electricity supply (Austin, 2000).

More importantly, the absence of market pressures in international development projects' appraisal and implementation combined with the intangibility of objectives,

"often

makes these projects the target of political manipulations" (Khang & Moe, 2008, p.75). Politicians or political parties of partner countries may push for unfeasible projects or oppose good ones for political gains. Also, funding agencies of donor countries may nourish alliances with political elite of recipient countries using IDPs (Khang & Moe, 2008). International development project implementers have to deal with complexity, resistance to change, competing agendas of large number of stakeholders and their diverse and even contradictory expectations (Ika, et al., 2010a).

2.1.3.4. Complex net of stakeholders

There are many stakeholders8 involved in international development projects compared to standard projects (sec Table 1 point 4). Typically, in industrial projects there are two stakeholder categories involved: the client, who pays for the project and benefits from it, and the contractor, who gets paid by the client for implementing a project and delivering desired resuits (Khang &

Moe, 2008). International development projects commonly involve three separate key stakeholders: the funding agency, who pays for but does not receive project outputs, the

8 Stakeholders - agencies, organizations, groups or individuals who have a direct or indirect interest in the development intervention, or who affects or is affected positively or negatively by the implementation and outcome of it (Glossary of Evaluation and Results-based management (RBM) Terms, 2000).

implementing unit, and the target beneficiaries, who benefit from the project (Khang & Moe, 2008). The World Bank has a more complex network of stakeholders that includes: a lender or donor, the Ministry of Finance of the partner country, the client (usually a sectorial ministry of institution), many stakeholders, a project management or coordination unit and a multitude of contractors, both firms and individuals who will carry out the physical implementation of most of the activities of the project (Aucoin, 1995). It is striking that project's beneficiaries 9 and population at large are left out from his stakeholder model. A good explanation as to why they were excluded may be that the beneficiaries, who may participate in the project identification phase, "can rarely be effective as clients once a project is in execution" (Diallo & Thuillier, 2005, p.239). This is "due to the lack of representative authorities or organizations, especially when it comes to validating the quality of the project outputs" (Diallo & Thuillier, 2005, p.239). There are nevertheless exceptions, as there are projects designed under a participative approach that aim to enhance the position of the beneficiaries as real stakeholders. In their earlier paper (Diallo &

Thuillier, 2004) talk about as many as seven stakeholders, which are: the project coordinator in charge of operations, the task manager located in the headquarters of the development agency, a national supervisor to whorn the coordinator reports, a project team, a steering committee, the beneficiaries and the population at large. None of these stakeholders list should be considered as exhaustive. It seems that the choice of international development project stakeholders may depend on a particular donor's or implementing partner's approach, sector in which project is implemented as well as local context and local culture.

Beneficiaries - the individuals (the target groups) or organizations that benefit, directly or indirectly, from the development intervention (Glossary of Evaluation and Results-based management (RBM) Terras, 2000).

32

2.1.3.5. High levels of bureaucracy

Last but flot least, international development projects are characterized by high levels of bureaucracy (see Table 1 point 5) as international aid donors have stringent reporting requirements and demand high levels of accountability from their implementing partners (Diallo

& Thuillier, 2005) as well as partner countries. International development projects follow transactional processes that have been codified by donors to guarantee that projects maintain rigor and transparency in how tasks are performed and contracts awarded (Diallo & Thuillier, 2005). Those aid agencies' processes are everything but simple. To guide CIDA development assistance partners, as well as the agency's employees, through the processes used to deliver development assistance program CIDA has been publishing its Business Process RoadMap. It outlines three business delivery models: core funding, responsive programming, and directive programming, and provides an overview of the différent methodologies used to develop, manage, communicate and implement CIDA investments, and provides appropriate references and links to key policies, strategies, guidelines and discussion or issue papers (CIDA's Business Process RoadMap, 2010). This CIDA guide counts 220 pages although it barely gives a high level overview of CIDA's policies and processes.

Table 1: Différences between international developinent projects and standard profects.

Standard projects ID projects

1. Objectives Hard, for example bridge construction Soft, for example poverty reduction or sustainable development

2. Deliverables Tangible Intangible

Business environment,

Very political,

3. Environment Highly competitive

Cultural or geographical gap s flot a rulei Complex

(domestic_projects) Cultural and geographical gap as a rule 4. Stakeholders Two general categories Three or more general categories

5. Bureaucracy Low to moderate levels High levels

To sum up: there are several important différences between standard projects and international development projects. It con be said that IDPs are characterized by: more soft goals (like social and human development) that translate directly to relatively intangible deliverables, largely subjective measures of project's success, very political and complex environment with cultural and geographical gap as a rule, complex net of stakeholders and beneficiaries and high levels of bureaucracy and stringent reporting requirements.

2.1.4. Relative importance of fine knowledge areas in international development project management

In this subsection we will look more closely into the differences between traditional and international development projects. We will do this by adopting a PMBOK Guide's approach called the fine knowledge areas. The fine knowledge areas are defined as management processes crucial to project's successful implementation. It seems that project's success is of utmost importance flot only to the project management practitioners but also to PM scholars. For example, to some scholars PM is the process by which a project is completed successfully (Muriithi & Crawford, 200:3). In this section we will try to assess which knowledge areas are most critical to international development project success in comparison to standard projects. ₁₅ each of nine knowledge areas as important to international development projects as it is to standard projects? It bas to be stressed that this comparison is prepared based on the literature review and at least in part is flot empirically proven.

Traditionally, project management "bas been seen largely about completing tasks on time, in budget, to scope" (Morris, et al., 2000, p.156). "High quality projects deliver the required product, service or result within scope, on lime and within budget" (PMBOK Guide, 2004, p.8).

34

Project scope, time and cost are referred to as triple constraint (PMBOK Guide, 2004). Meeting project requirements is accompiished through the application and integration of management processes, grouped in so caiied "nine knowledge areas" 10, throughout the project life cycle (PMBOK Guide, 2004). These areas are also called functions, and named the breakdown of project management into the set of speciaiist functions a functional structure in contrast to a life cycle structure (Wirth, 1992). These are management of scope, time, cost, quality, human resources, communications, risk and procurement. The ninth function is called integration management and is an integrative function as it "seeks to achieve a synergetic management" of ail other eight functions "while balancing the internai and externai environments" (Muriithi &

Crawford, 2003, p.311).

2.1.4.1. Cost management

Project compietion within time, cost and scope, and maintaining quaIity throughout, are very common dimensions of success factors mentioned by project management professional bodies and the research community (Ahsan & Gunawan, 2010). A study of 100 projects that were sponsored by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and hosted by severai Asian countries showed that most international development projects that were behind schedule experienced cost underrun (Ahsan & Gunawan, 2010). That is an unusual cost and scheduie variation relation in projects because, as a generai rule, projects taking more time cost more money (Ahsan &

Gunawan, 2010). Major reasons for project cost underrun were: depreciationldevaivation of local currency, lower than estimated bid price, international competitive bidding and less use of

Those fine knowledgc areas are called in PMBOK: Project Integration Management, Project Scope Management, Projcct Time Management, Project Cost Management, Project Quality Management, Project Human Resource Management, Project

Communications Management, Project Risk Management and Project Procurement Management.

Cost underrun implies that project is completcd under the budgeted cost and that unused money is accounted as ban surplus. At project's closing that ban surplus is cancelled.

contingency funds. Other important causes are project scope eut, project design change and local taxes and interest policy changes. Furthermore, schedule and cost variance were cornpared in relation to project success rate 12. The success rate differed depending on whether schedule and cost variance is positive or negative, but the relationship was rather unique. For the cost variance of projects analyzed the more cost underrun, the higher the project success rate (Ahsan &

Gunawan, 2010).

2.1.4.2. Time managemeni

A study of international development projects in Asia, documented that rnost of the projects were Iengthy in terms of duratiori and took more time than expected to complete (Ahsan & Gunawan, 2010). Despite significant time overruns, reaching 31.4%, as much as 83% of ADB projects were recognized as successful. Further comparison of schedule and cost variance in relation to project success rate showed that in case of schedule variance the later the schedule, the higher the project success rate (Ahsan & Gunawan, 2010). In the same vain, investigating World Bank projects' critical success factors and their interactions (Ika, Diallo, & Thuillier, 2010b) provided empirical evidence that project cost is far more important to project success than the time constraint. This does flot corne as a surprise as international development is a long-term oriented effort (Ika, Diallo & Thuillier, 2010b) and project delays are flot infrequent.

2.1.4.3. Scope management

The scope of a proj cet establishes the boundaries, the resource requirements and the quality

The scope of a proj cet establishes the boundaries, the resource requirements and the quality

Dans le document 2. Literature review (Page 25-0)